This is a.v.'s Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following a.v.'s activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
a.v.
Recent Activity
this is my impression... Eliminativism is just the denial of the occurence of the explanandum. e.g.: - There are no angels, so there is no reason to question about the sex of the angels - There is no causal relation, so there is no reason to wonder if there is a first cause - There is no mind, so there is no reason to question about intentionality or normativity It's a way to refuse to account for something, because the entities presupposed by the question are not given. While reductionism accepts the explanatory challenge, so it maintains the explanandum, assumes the entities presupposed as given, but then it tries to replace the explanans A with the explanans B. In short the distinction is relative to what we question and whether we accept to assume the explanatory challenge or not
that's exactly what I don't understand. what does "open in the earlier direction" mean ? That it has no end-points? If so, then you can't say how long it lasted. From the notion of "continuum" you can't deduce if an extension is "open" or not; in fact Potter mentioned a "finite interval t1": "God created contingent objects in such a way that there was a finite interval t1 during which contingent objects came into being [...]" To me, a "finite interval" means it has 2 end-points, am I wrong? thanks
"Now if there was a first interval of time, a first year some fifteen billion years ago let us say, but no first instant of time, then God can create the physical universe without violating (PCC)." How can you date this interval of time if there is no first instant of time? You concede something like "a first year", that is an amount of time defined by 2 end-points. Now since one of the two is earler than the second one (and than any of the other instants of that interval), then this must be the first instant thanks
a.v. is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 28, 2010